• Sachiyuki Tsukada, Masaki Otsuji, Akira Shiozaki, Asako Yamamoto, Shuro Komatsu, Hideya Yoshimura, Hiroo Ikeda, and Akiho Hoshino.
• Int Orthop. 2013 Dec 1; 37 (12): 2451-6.

PurposeThe reduction of periosteal compression through the use of a locking plate may minimize disturbances of bone blood supply and may improve the rate of bone union. A single-centre, assessor blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the clinical effectiveness of a locking plate and a non-locking plate.MethodsA total of 52 patients with AO/OTA 44B lateral malleolar fractures were included in this study. All patients underwent surgical fixation using a lag screw and neutralization plate. An identical treatment protocol was used in all patients, with exception of plate selection. The rate of radiographic bone union, defined as the complete disappearance of fracture lines confirmed through anteroposterior, lateral, and internal oblique views was compared at three, six, and 12 months following surgery. In addition, the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, the time required for resolution of tenderness at the fracture site and the complication rate were evaluated.ResultsTwenty-three patients were randomly assigned to undergo fixation using a locking plate, and 29 patients were assigned to undergo fixation using a non-locking plate. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the radiographic bone union rate of fibula, SF-36 score, the time for resolution of tenderness at the fracture site and complication rates.ConclusionNo differences were observed in patients with AO/OTA 44B lateral malleolar fractures undergoing fixation with a locking versus non-locking neutralization plate.

23 keywords...

hide…